/lit/ - Literature

i think its because people are convinced steam of consciousness style can be produced by automatic writing, which requires no editing/work/rewriting

so basically they read eliot, faulkner, pynchon or whoever else in HS/undergrad and think, "hey, i can do that! i can sound cool without effort" even though they don't realize it takes a lot of effort

unless of course you're faulkner, through whom god spoke

Because it seems natural and easy

>>3190461
>>3190468

I agree entirely. Many don't realize that the best SoC writing - the works that are painstakingly re-drafted and edited - are given their spontaneous luster through delicate revisions by the author. But even still, many of my own peers - who DO edit their work - continue to write in the style, never exploring anything else.

Like this one guy I know: everything he's produced for the last two years seems to be striving to be as much like Ginsberg's "Howl" as possible.

I appreciate the effort, and do enjoy these works, but I can't figure out the lasting appeal. It almost reminds me of those Krokodil junkies in southern Russia.

I don't think it's laziness, really. More likely, stream of consciousness just seems raw and experimental-- two things that appeal to a young writer who is convinced (and they're always convinced) that no one has felt, much less accurately expressed, their particular emotions before.

>>3190433
>Why the hell is stream of consciousness such a popular narrative device among young writers?
It's kind of exciting in a way, when you first learn of it. A lot of contemporary stuff is written in it too. For some reason people think they can write it even though it's really difficult to pull off.

Stream of consciousness is a natural genre for English language prose poems.

Personally, I prefer cut-ups and anal mucous.

There's this faggot in one of my undergrad classes who thinks he's the reincarnation of James Joyce or some shit. His writing style is intentionally incomprehensible and he thinks it's fucking brilliant because of that. I just want to tell him he's not Joyce but he'd probably only reply "I know; I'm better."

I will quote a Kaufmann quote I read just today: "...a mere jugglery of big words--a lack of insight that pretends to be profound and frequently deceives the writer into thinking that his prose is deep merely because it is abysmal."

>>3190551

I always strive to make my writing as clear, concise and to the point as possible.

Stream of consciousness and over-verboseness are cancers on the literary colon.

>>3190581
He brings up Finnegans Wake and that he's "read it twice" every chance he gets.

Nice try Martin


this isn't made by us. Although by all means, talk about TAR. This month we're literally overflowing with submissions

Hey. I think I was published in edition number nine of TAR.

But yeah. I can't do stream of consciousness writing (true stream of consciousness writing) without deleting it directly after.

>>3190654
Hi, Prole.

>>3190581
Hi ned

>>3190461

>faulkner, through whom god spoke

Rarely have I agreed so fervently with /lit/ scum

>>3190654
>misusing "literally"

I expected more from you Prole.

>>3190654
hi prole

>>3190654
Prole, buddy.

You really have to stop being so paranoid. I am the OP.

AND FUCK YOU FOR POSTING THAT FUCKING IMAGE!

>>3190666
heya 'byte

and actually this guy does have a point about stream of consciousness being popular as fuck. I don't know why, even I'm guilty of reverting to this as an easy way out. It doesn't have to be simple, mind you

>>3190675
Expecting something from a simple Prole? Oh, you poor deluded soul

>>3190678
Damnit Dmirtiy I wanted to be paranoid. BAHHHHHHHH

>>3190551

"I have one word to say upon the subject of profound writers, who are grown very numerous of late, and I know very well the judicious world is resolved to list me in that number. I conceive, therefore, as to the business of being profound, that it is with writers as with wells--a person with good eyes can see to the bottom of the deepest, provided any water be there; and that often when there is nothing in the world at the bottom besides dryness and dirt, though it be but a yard and half under ground it shall pass, however, for wondrous deep, upon no wiser a reason than because it is wondrous dark."

--Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub

>>3190713
Haha wow. That's extremely similar, even in the syntax. Thank you.

i don't know how to do anything else

>>3190551
that's me

>>3190551
>>3190713

What if these guys just didn't get it? Isn't that possible as well?

>>3190551
otto?

>>3190813

It's not that they're repudiating a specific person, but really a whole general trend.

We see it in every writing thread on /lit/ where someone posts something just overwrought with all these big words that are clumsy and don't really mean anything. Sure you could say we didn't get it, but that'd be beside the fact that their writing was shit and not worth 'getting.'

>>3190957

There are also plenty of threads here where genuine breathtaking work is posted (not oc), and is casually written off as pretentious garbage or tryhard due to the density of language or theme.

>>3190977
I think we can safely say that's few and far in between compared to the constant stream of tripe.

>>3190990

Granted. Pisses me off that the mentality of denial carries over, though, regardless of content.